Monday, December 04, 2006
planet earth
The BBC documentary programme 'planet earth' has to be the best documentary series on TV at the moment.
I'm not a big fan of the BBC, i don't buy into all that crap about "quality programming" to justify the ridiculous tax we pay to them. However its good to see that some of the cash has been spent wisely and not all of our money has ended up in the pockets of their fat cat directors
Regardless, I still hate the TV licence and the only reason i pay it is because ... some bastard gave them my name. Its not really about the money, more about why do i have to pay for a channel i hardly watch. Wetin concern me with strictly come dancing, casualty, eastenders and the other crap they show. Ok i admit i watch Crimewatch from time to time but that's just to check out what 'awon boys' have been up to..
but i digress (phew I had to get that rant about the TV licence out of my system )
Last night's episode was about seasonal forests and the amazing trees that inhabit them. These forests are the lungs of the planet and they replenish the atmosphere with oxygen. A lot of the exceptional trees that grow in these forests are under threat. Many of them like the Bristlecone pines in California can live for about 5,000 years.
A particular specimen nicknamed "Methuselah" is estimated to be 4,700 years old (meaning this tree was around before Christ was born).
Another remarkable tree is the sequoia tree, the tallest tree in the world, it can reach a height of 115.5m (thats as high as a 30 storey building) and can live for over 2,000 years.
I saw a specimen at the Natural history museum here in London, it was cut down in the late 19th century and by then it was already 1,300 years old.
The point i'm trying to make here is, we live on a remarkable piece of real estate that we don't really appreciate, considering its the only habitable piece of rock in the solar system we need to take good care of it, not destroy it along with the remarkable creatures that share it with us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There is certainly a (negative) consequence of destroying natural habitats - but the problem is that the consequence is a delayed one, and is only manifest when it is too late to do anything about it.
Hmm... wouldn't it be nice if it was actually an instant reaction, though?
"OK, stand ready... bring that saw up close... all right, go for it..."
(sound of saw cutting tree in forest, followed by instant natural disaster killing all loggers in the vicinty)
Post a Comment